Clark v. Anderson et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling defendant's 69 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Further, on or before 03/10/2014, defendant may file an unsealed memorandum and exhibits in support of his 68 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 03/05/2014. (mg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ENOCH CLARK, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL ANDERSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 09-3141-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Enoch Clark, Jr., an inmate at Larned State Hospital, brings suit pro se against Daniel
Anderson, a deputy for the Sheriff’s Office of Wyandotte County, Kansas, for violation of
constitutional and common law rights. This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Motion
For Leave To File Under Seal (Doc. #69) filed February 14, 2014. For reasons stated below, the
Court overrules the motion.
Legal Standards
Federal courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.
Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149
(10th Cir. 2007). This right derives from the public’s interest in understanding disputes that are
presented to a public forum for resolution and is intended to ensure that courts are fair and judges
are honest. Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980); Worford v. City
of Topeka, No. 03-2450-JWL-DJW, 2004 WL 316073, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2004). The public’s
right of access, however, is not absolute. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292. The Court therefore has discretion
to seal documents if competing interests outweigh the public’s right of access. Id.; United States
v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985). In exercising its discretion, the Court weighs the

public’s interests, which it presumes are paramount, against those advanced by the parties. Helm,
656 F.3d at 1292; Dobbins, 616 F.2d at 461. The party seeking to overcome the presumption of
public access to the documents bears the burden of showing that some significant interest outweighs
the presumption. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292; Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149. The Court should seal
documents based only on articulable facts known to the Court, and not based on unsupported
hypothesis or conjecture. Worford, 2004 WL 316073, at *1 (citing Stapp v. Overnite Transp. Co.,
No. 96-2320-GTV, 1998 WL 229538, at *1 (D. Kan. April 10, 1998)).
Analysis
Defendant seeks leave to file under seal the memorandum in support of his summary
judgment motion and all exhibits in support thereof. In support of the request, defendant states that
the documents contain information relating to the mental health history, correctional records and
criminal records of plaintiff. Motion For Leave To File Under Seal (Doc. #69) at 2, ¶ 4. Defendant
states that the court protective order requires the parties to treat such information as confidential and
to use it only for purposes of this lawsuit. Id. at 1, ¶2. Defendant also cites paragraph 8 of the
protective order, which states as follows:
Any party desiring to file with the court any confidential material, or documents
containing information derived from such material, shall first file an appropriate
motion with the court in compliance with D. Kan. Rule 5.4.6 and be granted leave
to file the particular document under seal. If any party desires to file any document
under seal, they must comply with all required procedures for filing under seal with
the Clerk of the Court.
Protective Order (Doc. #39) filed February 28, 2013 at 5, ¶ 8.
Defendant provides no explanation why disclosure of the information might be harmful to
either party. The fact that the Court has entered an agreed protective order does not in itself provide
a sufficient reason to seal the documents. See Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc. v. BioMedix Vascular
-2-

Solutions, Inc., No. 11-4093-SAC, 2012 WL 884926, at *1 (D. Kan. March 14, 2012);
Carefusion 213, LLC v. Professional Disposables, Inc., No. 09-2616-KHV-DJW, 2010 WL
2653643, at *1 (D. Kan. June 29, 2010). On this record, defendant has not come close to meeting
the heavy burden to articulate a real and substantial interest which justifies depriving the public
access to records which inform the Court’s decision-making process. See Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292.
Also, defendant has not shown that redaction would not sufficiently protect any information
which is legitimately confidential. Pursuant to the District of Kansas Administrative Procedures for
Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in Civil Cases, defendant
may redact personal data as follows:
To address the privacy concerns created by Internet access to court documents,
litigants shall modify or partially redact the following personal data identifiers
appearing in documents filed with the court:
1. Social Security numbers: Use only the last four numbers;
2. Minors’ names: Use the minors’ initials;
3. Dates of birth: Use only the year; and
4. Financial account numbers: Identify the name or type of account and the
financial institution where maintained, but use only the last four numbers of
the account number.
In addition, parties may modify or partially redact other confidential information as
permitted by the court (e.g., driver’s license numbers, medical records, employment
history, individual financial information, and proprietary or trade secret information).
District of Kansas Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and
Papers by Electronic Means in Civil Cases, § II., I.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion For Leave To File Under Seal
(Doc. #69) filed February 14, 2014 be and hereby is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 10, 2014, defendant may file an
unsealed memorandum and exhibits in support of his motion for summary judgment.

-3-

Dated this 5th day of March, 2014 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
Kathryn H. Vratil
United States District Judge

-4-